"Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> writes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <julien.ri...@gmail.com> > To: <philehol...@googlemail.com>; <d...@gnu.org>; <gra...@percival-music.ca> > Cc: <re...@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com>; <lilypond-devel@gnu.org> > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:56 PM > Subject: Re: Directs makeinfo and texi2html output to logfiles (issue > 5645046) > > >> I'm not sure why the run-and-check.sh script needs to be so complicated. > > Nor me. But I did a lot of experimentation to get it to work. I > think all the extra redirection and the exec stuff is required because > you're running a command inside a shell script, and so simply trying: > > command 2>&1 > > doesn't work.
Why wouldn't it? > There's lots of stuff on the net about needing to use exec. There is a whole lot of nonsense "on the net". That does not mean anything. > If you don't use eval, the shell tries to run the first "command" it > sees, which is "DEPTH=$(depth)/../" and this fails as a command. So > the way round that was to use eval. This seriously sounds rather fishy. > As you know, I'm no unix script expert. But I'd be surprised if there > was a simpler way to actually make this work. I'm a unix script expert so to say, but I can't keep up with running the whole show. I am already juggling too many tasks related to LilyPond, and all of the juggling costs more time than the individual tasks do since it breaks concentration, and I still have to write up a publication for the LilyPond Report explaning to people why they should bother paying me for tasks I am doing "voluntarily" because noone *fscking* else does and they are the right thing to do. I am currently quitting my choir (just need to get the outfit through the dry cleaner) because I have been told that it is indecent of me to mention the efforts I take for doing decidedly more than my share of the work because "you would not need to do this if you did not want to". What a convenient excuse to grab all one can get. Sorry, you (singular) don't deserve this. I am just in a bad mood. >From the sounds of it, it would appear to be that you are doing something too complex here. Most certainly command 2>&1 should work, and you can group commands like { command command command } 2>&1 as well if you don't want to patch up single commands. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel